Silent Complicity

The more we learn about Omar Khadr, the more it becomes apparent just how badly Canada has messed this one up. Now this morning we learn that our government knew that Khadr was being mistreated but that Stephen Harper isn't going to do anything about it. I guess he wants to look "tough" in front of his Washington pals. Or something. This is the man that came to power on the slogan "stand up for Canada" and yet once again he'll sit on his hands when real courage is required. Even Australia and the UK, often considered the two most steadfast US partners in the war on terror, have brought their citizens home from Guantanamo. Now it's our turn. Bring Khadr home. If the evidence warrants it, give him a fair trial in the Canadian justice system. No torture, no kangaroo courts, no legal limbo, no bullshit.

What countries can execute Canadians?

Having seen that a Canadian man on death row in Montana is now suing for the Canadian government for lacking the courage to maintain Canada's policy of opposing the death penalty, it has started me to wondering about which states might kill Canadians, and for what reasons. The government of Hangman Harper said that it would not fight against executions in a place like the US because it is "democratic" and "supports the rule of law."

This is another part of the new Harper look-the-other-way policy about which I'm curious. Canada's back alright, back in the pocket of the US. We are supposed to friends with the Americans, not their subservient lackeys.

Lately one or two have fully paid their due...

...for working for the clampdown.

Iraq-invadin', climate change denin' John Howard is done down under. And for those who don't see a way to defeat Harper here any time soon, it should be noted that the CBC reports:

"The win marked a humiliating end to the career of outgoing Prime Minister John Howard, who became Australia's second-longest serving leader - and who had appeared almost unassailable as little as a year ago."

As recently as earlier this year, people like Mark Steyn loved to speak of the "anglosphere" as a cohesive unit - to them it must have seemed that now that a Conservative was running Canada it could join the US, UK, and Australia (though curiously New Zealand never gets mentioned) in making the world safe, for democracy or at least whatever the hell Bush thinks it is that Musharraf is doing in Pakistan.

Today one wonders if there was ever such a cohesive thing as a unified anglosphere as conservatives might have imagined it - rather than just coinciding right-wing governments.

What are we doing at the UN anyway?

Apparently Canada sponsored a resolution condemning human rights violations in Iran - and it passed. While this seems sensible in that most observers would tell you that, yes, there are rights violations in Iran, what is mind boggling though is how you set this in the context of how the Conservatives have treated other UN resolutions or other expressions of concern for human rights.

Canada would not place a simple phone call to support a death penalty resolution recently. This could not be done because our people at the UN were busy on other, unspecified, resolutions. Last year, Canada could not even get behind a resolution to investigate Israel's use of collective punishment in the Gaza Strip.

In the meantime, if you raise questions about Canada's own actions in Afghanistan, it's because you hate our troops. We are no better at home than we are abroad.

When Canada took a stand on an issue at the UN, there used to be some moral weight behind it - or at least the sense that we were an independent-minded agent. Now we appear to be useful idiots for the US and Israel. At home, when there were serious problems with our mistreatment of Somali prisoners we went to the trouble of a public inquiry. Now the government accuses critics of lacking patriotism.

What this does is drain all the credibility out of our efforts at the UN. When we now condemn Iran's government it appears to be less an exercise in legitimately criticizing the immoral actions of its government and more an effort to establish our bona fides with the US and Israel.

This ain't a scene...

...it IS an arms race. No, really. The US is going to give a ton of military goodies to the gulf states, Israel, and Egypt.

There are several things here that strike me as glaringly wrong. First of all, this does smell like so much corporate welfare for the arms industry. The last I checked the Israelis still had about the most advanced military in the region, I'm not sure what else they need. I mean they even have nukes... oops, am I not supposed to say that? Let's stop pussyfooting around, the Israelis have nukes, it's the worst kept secret in the world.

As for selling arms to the Egyptians and the gulf states, in the case of Egypt I always wonder how far the Islamic Brotherhood is from being able to run the rather dictatorial Mubarak regime out of town. Remember how the Shah got F-14s, fat lot of good that got him when the public became fed up with him. In the case of the gulf states you have the same risk of coup d'etat, and it's not like any of these countries are hard up for cash.

Furthermore, after doling out all these weapons, what is Iran going to think? Forget about whether Ahmadinejad is nuts or not because he doesn't control the military. What would any leader in Iran think? What would any hypothetical leader slightly more militaristic than Gandhi think? I suspect the answer would be something about it being time to buy more weapons. It's the only rational response.

And so it goes...

Guess who's back!

I guess this may be getting lost in the midst of the war on terror, but, uh, the terrorists of al Qaeda are doing better organization-wise than they have since 2001. The response of the West and NATO in general and the US in particular to terror threats in the first decade of the 21st century may long be studied as the textbook case of what NOT to do.

Free Trade is the only Freedom?

What exactly does the RCMP think that the Council of Canadians will do that is such a security threat to the Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting to be held in Montebello Quebec? And what in the hell does the US Army think it's doing telling Canadians where we can and cannot hold public meetings?! The US Army is not the law here, if Canada sooooo dangerous that our own police, intelligence, and military people can't handle things; then perhaps the US delegation ought not to attend.

These are not radical anarchists or militants or something, as far as trade liberalization critics go, the C of C is about as peaceful as they come. That doesn't mean they don't have sharp criticisms or their wits about them, but they are a far cry from the Molotov cocktail throwers.

It's a wretched irony that those that speak of breaking down trade barriers will erect every other sort of barrier, lest a dissenting voice is heard.

Happy (Belated) 4th

To all my American readers (sitemeter insists you are out there), happy 231st birthday!

Who's afraid of Iran?

Juan Cole writes today about the threat (or lack thereof) that Iran poses to the US:

"Polling shows that the percentage of Americans who view Iran as the number one threat to the United States has risen to 27 percent now. I think it was only 20 percent in December 2006. First of all, how in the world can a developing country with about a fourth of the population of the US, about a $2000 per capita income (in real terms, not local purchasing power), with no intercontinental ballistic missiles, with no weapons of mass destruction (and no proof positive it is trying to get them), with a small army and a small military budget-- how is such a country a "threat" to the United States of America? Iranian leaders don't like the US, and they talk dirty about the US, and they do attempt to thwart US interests. The same is true of Venezuela under Chavez. But Tehran is a minor player on the world stage, and trying to build it up to replace the Soviet Union is just the worst sort of fear-mongering, and it is being done on behalf of the US military industrial complex, which wants to do to Iran what it did to Iraq. It is propaganda, and significant numbers of Americans (a 7 percent increase would be like 21 million people!) are buying it."

The only thing that I would add is that the typical response of those that would have Iran as the number one threat is that Iran could also project force through asymmetrical means (i.e.: terror attacks). The original critique holds though as there could be no doubt that the response by the US to an Iranian terror attack on US soil would be overwhelming.

This is the part where Iranophobes will mention Ahmadinejad's eschatological outlook. Aside from pointing out that a fair number of Christians think the same way if you replace "12th Imam" with "Jesus Christ" in the rambling speeches, it is worth remembering though that Ahmadinejad does not hold authority over the armed forces and really does have a limited amount of power under Iran's constitution.

Training Terrorists

Dennis Perrin has this witty line here:

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker told the Iranians they had to stop arming, funding and training Shiite militants. "We can do that ourselves," said Crocker. "We don't need to farm this out."

And while your musing about just how satirical such a comment might be, Andrew Sullivan indicates that the line is pretty thin.

Haiti Can't Get a Break

Even if you want to leave the place, don't try the US, they'll send you back.

One part of me wants to say that it's really a shame that North America does the bare minimum to assist this troubled nation on its doorstep. Another part of me is wary of what the consequences of a large-scale intervention might be. Would we look like imperialists - even if our intentions were honourable? Would the Haitians even trust us? There is evidence that the latest round of coups and unpleasantness was sponsored by the US.

So what sensible, constructive approach can we take? (Aside from not fomenting another coup d'etat.)

Tragic Irony: WMD Edition

There are more reports this morning about the growing facility that insurgents have with chlorine gas as a weapon. Their latest attempt has killed at least 27. Chemical weapons are making a comeback in Iraq thanks to the US-led invasion.

On some level I hoped that I was wrong about the Iraq war because, well, the idea of having a secular democratic Iraq remains so appealing. Looking at the history of invasions, occupations, and colonial administrations though gave me the sense to predict the worst scenarios. It's just tragic that the most morbid predications about this war have been right.

Another Canadian Held by The US Government

I had heard about this case vaguely, but to hear this family's plight on the radio tonight was something else. The story to recap is one of an Iranian couple and their Canadian born son (who is therefore a Canadian citizen) being held in some detention centre by the US Government.

From what I can gather, the family does not know why they are being held and they are being detained in separate quarters. What have these people done to deserve such shabby treatment. Moreover, if this is what is happening, where's Harper and his "stand up for Canada" rhetoric. Stop bending over for Bush and stand up already.